| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Contra the Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 02:33:10 +0200 |
|
Salvete Quirites et Salve Illustrus Decius Iunius Palladius, Amice!
>Salvete cives,
>
>Having read the discussions back and forth and especially G. Iulius
>Scarus' most useful point by point comparison and Q. Cassius Calvus'
>cost comparison, I have decided to vote against this law and
>encourage all Nova Romans to do the same.
Have You observed that Illustrus Q. Cassius Calvus have publicly
admitted that he was wrong? Are You still going to vote aginst Lex
Fabia de Censo?
>As Calvus rightly points out, the costs under both laws will be about
>the same so it is not a matter of saving money, though the matter of
>reimbursements are an problem with the proposed law.
As You may have seen that this is plainly wrong.
>The extant law
>doesn't address reimbursements, it is true but the new proposal
>specifies an unfair solution. Those involved with the census would be
>paid back by direct reimbursement or by a tax credit for the
>following year. Which one the censors and not the person assisting in
>carrying out the census would decide. This should be the choice of
>the individual performing the tasks, not the censors. Frankly, I
>think the only option should be direct reimbursement and not a
>delayed tax credit. "Sure, we'll repay your expenses--eventually."
>That attitude doesn't speak well for us though I admit it is a minor
>issue.
The tax credit system is still cheaper and I am sure that that our
loyal and enthusiastic officials are prepared to wait one year for
enbursement if it keep costs down. Remember that the tax credit
system is mainly constructed to make the reimbursement in Europe,
South America, Afrika, Asia and Australia cheaper.
>Decimus Iunius Silanus recently commented on the workload this would
>create for the governors and their staffs and I encourage you to
>reread his comments.
As Astur said most Governors and legati have so little to do that
they may well be happy to make this contribution. ;-)
>The main issue is the so-called socii. At first I was intrigued by
>this idea, as it would facilitate reentry into NR.
Well I think that the Socii group will be a strong source of
recruitment for Nova Roma. Should we relinquish the Socii as a
re-cruitment source, just because we are embarrassed because we
incompetent in keeping our citizens.
>However, the more
>I thought about it I realized it really would highlight our main
>problem: inactive citizens.
So You think that it will be to our advantage if we hide this fact
and "lie" about it?
>It essentially will say: "Of 1700 people
>who joined NR, 1300 are now socii, people who could not bother to
>reply to our census, vote or pay taxes."
Remember that we have seen quite a few "old" citizens return to Nova
Roma. AS far as I understand all of them have had honorable reasons
to be gone for a short time. This kind of "Socii" would possibly feel
stronger loyalty to a micro-nation which still kept their name in
high regard rather than one which just would erase their good name,
because it is ashamed of the fact that it can keep its citizens. Why
not try to be better in keeping our citizens and in recruiting the
Socii back as citizens. If we did this. Nova Roma would grow much
faster!
>(based on the estimated high
>number of 400 active citizens which is probably closer to 300-350) It
>will advertise our main weakness,
It could also encourage our Governors to take care of our present
citizens and to try to activate the Socii and Capiti Censi.
>thus will not be a good recruiting
>tool. Either these people should be removed from the rolls of
>citizens as the current census law calls for or they should remain in
>the head count.
You are making a mistake. do You want to abandon these persons?
>For the socii issue alone I would recommend voting against this law.
>I would also recommend against it because we have a census law that
>was ignored last year.
It was ignored because it was a badly written and thought through law!
>Why would this one not be ignored also?
As I have got a clear indication that the Censors prefer this law.
>They
>will cost about the same so why will this one be carried out?
As the facts that You based your stand point on were wrong I assume
that You will change your mind now.
>A general comment from long observation (and I hate to say it) there
>is a tendency in Nova Roma to try different solutions and pass
>different laws or senatus consulta on the same issue before allowing
>the original programs to work so the flaws in the system can be
>discovered. Perhaps this comes from our brief five-year existence or
>perhaps it is a flaw in electing annual magistrates, because there
>often is a desire to turn the system upside down every year.
Well it is hard to avoid when the present laws are too expensive or
badly written.
> There is
>much uncharted territory for legislation and work without having to
>revisit old ground.
Rest assured hat I will break new ground too! ;-) And You are invited
to be with me as You are one of my Accensi maior and will continue to
see my proposals before the Populus. ;-)
>Let's allow the original census law to be carried
>out and then see what needs to be changed after the census.
That would be financially irresponsible.
>Valete,
>
>Decius Iunius Palladius, Senator
>(Praetor)
>
>[-note, just for the record, this post is a personal opinion, not an
official praetorian position]
I, on the contrary, post this as an official Consular position,
anything else would be very strange and wrong. ;-)
--
Vale
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] In support of the Lex Fabia de Censo |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net> |
| Date: |
Sun, 25 May 2003 19:37:27 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Salvete Cives,
Consul Caeso Fabius has adequately covered the financial reasoning for
this change - by allowing provincial administration to make phone
calls or send letters instead of paying taxes for themselves, there
will be few required international bank transfers in either direction.
Yet that was not the primary cause for this proposal. With the lex
already in place, the entire burden of conducting the Census is placed
upon the Censores - and we simply can't do it. Hundreds of phone
calls would have to be made, many of them international, many of them
to persons who may have little ability to converse in English or German.
With the current system, the only way we could reasonably perform
the Census would be to assemble a vast army of scribae, at least
one per country (more in larger countries), who would serve only
long enough to make the phone calls (and would never be compensated
for such). Choosing and managing these temporary scribae would
still be a massive undertaking, only slightly less formidable
than doing it with our regular staff.
The inent of the Lex Fabia de Censo is to use the provincial
infrastructure already in place to do this work. In doing so, the
provinces will be strengthened - something that the current system
does not provide. The inactive citizen, upon receiving a phone
call from his propraetor or legate, might be surprised to discover
that there are active citizens nearby, and might seek to learn more
about provincial or regional events.
The Census is a good idea, and it is something we do wish to perform
this year - but as it currently stands, it is an unmanageable task.
With the Lex Fabia de Censo, it will become possible, and it will
be done, and it will strengthen our provinces and promote local
communication.
Valete, Octavius.
--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://konoko.net/~haase/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] tax lament |
| From: |
Decimus Antoninius Aquitanius <romalist2@yahoo.ca> |
| Date: |
Sun, 25 May 2003 18:30:38 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Ave Consul et Senator Caeso Fabius!
Thank you for your assistance in this matter!
Hopefully it'll come through, if not, oh well...maybe
next year!
Vale!
=====
Decimus Antoninius Aquitanius Organbidexka
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
"deciusiunius" <bcatfd@together.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 03:00:17 -0000 |
|
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
<christer.edling@t...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites et Salve Illustrus Decius Iunius Palladius, Amice!
Salve Consul Caeso Fabi Quintiliane, Amice! SVBEEV
> Have You observed that Illustrus Q. Cassius Calvus have publicly
> admitted that he was wrong? Are You still going to vote aginst Lex
> Fabia de Censo?
Yes to both questions. I have indeed read Calvus' retraction and
acknowledge that the Lex Fabia will probably cost less, though in
reality we are not talking a great savings but it does appears to be
cheaper.
> >As Calvus rightly points out, the costs under both laws will be
about
> >the same so it is not a matter of saving money, though the matter
of
> >reimbursements are an problem with the proposed law.
>
> As You may have seen that this is plainly wrong.
No, it is not wrong. I understand your rationale for the tax credit
and understood it when I previously posted, I just disagree with your
rationale.
> >The extant law
> >doesn't address reimbursements, it is true but the new proposal
> >specifies an unfair solution. Those involved with the census would
be
> >paid back by direct reimbursement or by a tax credit for the
> >following year. Which one the censors and not the person assisting
in
> >carrying out the census would decide. This should be the choice of
> >the individual performing the tasks, not the censors. Frankly, I
> >think the only option should be direct reimbursement and not a
> >delayed tax credit. "Sure, we'll repay your expenses--eventually."
> >That attitude doesn't speak well for us though I admit it is a
minor
> >issue.
>
> The tax credit system is still cheaper and I am sure that that our
> loyal and enthusiastic officials are prepared to wait one year for
> enbursement if it keep costs down.
Ahh, the subtle appeal to patriotism to forgo compensation. Not a
pretty sight. So if one thinks we should promptly compensate those
who work on our behalf he is not patriotic?
I have a question about the tax credit reimbursement. It appears from
the reading of the law and from your comments that this credit is
only for the following tax year (yet another vaguely phrased section
of the law so it is uncklear if this is the case or not). Quite
possibly, even likely in some cases, those conducting the census will
spend more than the amount of one year's tax performing this task.
So, if the tax for one's country is $7 US and one spends $14 US, even
with the tax credit he would still be owed $7. Would he then be
reimbursed or would the tax credit be for more than one year? If he
is to be reimbursed for the remainder then there would be no savings
in this instance, thus reducing the savings which is so key to this
law.
This would apply only to those who spent more than a year's taxes of
course, those who spent less would be covered by the tax credit.
Oh, and would the tax credit pay interest back to the worker or would
those few cents be a further gift to Nova Roma? ;-) <humor alert,
said somewhat tongue in cheek, though I wouldn't mind an answer>
> >Decimus Iunius Silanus recently commented on the workload this
>would
> >create for the governors and their staffs and I encourage you to
> >reread his comments.
>
> As Astur said most Governors and legati have so little to do that
> they may well be happy to make this contribution. ;-)
Provided they are promptly reimbursed, you may be right. ;-)
> >The main issue is the so-called socii. At first I was intrigued by
> >this idea, as it would facilitate reentry into NR.
>
> Well I think that the Socii group will be a strong source of
> recruitment for Nova Roma. Should we relinquish the Socii as a
> re-cruitment source, just because we are embarrassed because we
> incompetent in keeping our citizens.
>
> >However, the more
> >I thought about it I realized it really would highlight our main
> >problem: inactive citizens.
>
> So You think that it will be to our advantage if we hide this fact
> and "lie" about it?
Lie? Who said lie? Leaving people in the head count is not lying but
it also is not pointing a neon sign to those who don't bother to
commit anything to Nova Roma.
The current law drops them completely and that is probably the best
thing to do.
I ask you, do you envision people remaining socii indefinitely?
Possibly a time limit should be placed on that status, like two years.
> >It essentially will say: "Of 1700 people
> >who joined NR, 1300 are now socii, people who could not bother to
> >reply to our census, vote or pay taxes."
>
> Remember that we have seen quite a few "old" citizens return to
Nova
> Roma. AS far as I understand all of them have had honorable reasons
> to be gone for a short time. This kind of "Socii" would possibly
>feel stronger loyalty to a micro-nation which still kept their name
>in high regard rather than one which just would erase their good
>name, because it is ashamed of the fact that it can keep its
>citizens. Why not try to be better in keeping our citizens and in
>recruiting the Socii back as citizens. If we did this. Nova Roma
>would grow much faster!
Fine, then put a time limit on this status. Otherwise, a non-active
citizen will tie up a particular name indefinitely and our number of
socii will grow to huge numbers making us look ridiculous.
> >thus will not be a good recruiting
> >tool. Either these people should be removed from the rolls of
> >citizens as the current census law calls for or they should remain
in
> >the head count.
>
> You are making a mistake. do You want to abandon these persons?
They have abandoned us. I understand your reasons behind the socii
and they are noble ones but we should not accomodate inactive
citizens for any great length of time.
>For the socii issue alone I would recommend voting against this law.
> >I would also recommend against it because we have a census law that
> >was ignored last year.
>
> It was ignored because it was a badly written and thought through
>law!
In your opinion. However, that is irrelevant not to mention specious.
Should magistrates pick and choose what laws they wish to obey? If
you say yes, then why should we obey any of our laws, including the
one you want to pass? The rule of law doesn't mean "only those laws I
feel like obeying." Or does it? I hope that phrase isn't constantly
repeated back to us in the coming years for various laws. "I think it
was a badly written and thought through law and thus ignored it!"
If the law was so badly written, why did you borrow from it so
heavily? Many parts of your law are taken verbatim from the old law,
in essence making it a large amendment to the law and not completely
new piece of legislation. It is some of the the changes you made with
the law that I find the problems with.
> >Why would this one not be ignored also?
>
> As I have got a clear indication that the Censors prefer this law.
Again, that is irrelevant. What they "prefer" does not matter in the
slightest, they had (have?) an obligation to carry out the law to the
best of their ability. Did they at least try to obey the law?
> >They
> >will cost about the same so why will this one be carried out?
>
> As the facts that You based your stand point on were wrong I assume
> that You will change your mind now.
On the financial issue, yes, I have changed my mind. Not on the socii
issue.
I ask you, if this law passes, to consider an amendment to the law
putting a time limit on how long one can remain a socius. There must
be a limit on this status.
Also, I would suggest an amendment, if it passes, specifying how long
a tax credit can be extended. Right now it is unclear for how long a
credit is good for.
> > There is
> >much uncharted territory for legislation and work without having to
> >revisit old ground.
>
> Rest assured hat I will break new ground too! ;-) And You are
>invited to be with me as You are one of my Accensi maior and will
>continue to see my proposals before the Populus. ;-)
I look forward to it and will continue to voice my opinions there and
here. ;-)
> >Let's allow the original census law to be carried
> >out and then see what needs to be changed after the census.
>
> That would be financially irresponsible.
Not to mention in compliance with the law, but that doesn't matter
as "I think it was a badly written and thought through law and thus
ignored it."
> >Decius Iunius Palladius, Senator
> >(Praetor)
> >
> >[-note, just for the record, this post is a personal opinion, not
an
> official praetorian position]
>
> I, on the contrary, post this as an official Consular position,
> anything else would be very strange and wrong. ;-)
Naturally, it is your law, but since this is outside the purview of
the office of praetor I thought such a proviso on my part prudent.
Vale,
Decius Iunius Palladius, Senator
(Praetor)
[-note, just for the record again, this post is a personal opinion,
not an official praetorian position and is rated G, suitable for all
audiences ;-)]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Atten Voters: Invalid Voter Code |
| From: |
"aerdensrw" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 03:12:42 -0000 |
|
The citizen with the following voter tracking
number has a malformed or inaccurate voter code:
#855
Please remember to enter your code exactly as
it is given, and if you are unsure of your new
code, follow the instructions posted previously
to obtain your current voter code by e-mail:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/5339
Or you may write the censors: censors @ novaroma.org
Renata Corva
Sr. Rogatrix
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
"Gaius Marius Merullus" <c_marius_m@novaroma.org> |
| Date: |
Sun, 25 May 2003 23:20:50 -0400 |
|
Salvete Praetor Palladi et alii
:
:The current law drops them completely and that is probably the best
:thing to do.
I disagree with most of your points against the new law, but mostly with
this one. How is it better to expel inactive people than to change their
status?
:
:I ask you, do you envision people remaining socii indefinitely?
:Possibly a time limit should be placed on that status, like two years.
Fine points like this, in my view, make rules unnecessarily lengthy. The
further an author goes into this kind of contingent detail, the more likely
to create an internal contradiction or conflict with another rule.
:
:
:If the law was so badly written, why did you borrow from it so
:heavily? Many parts of your law are taken verbatim from the old law,
:in essence making it a large amendment to the law and not completely
:new piece of legislation. It is some of the the changes you made with
:the law that I find the problems with.
I am thankful to the Consul for putting this before us. Without alteration,
the old census law forces NR either to leave the law in place and pretend
that it is not there, or expend some money and a lot of effort to expel the
majority of our membership.
I say that the new law is an improvement, let's vote for it.
Valete
C Marius Merullus
:
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
"deciusiunius" <bcatfd@together.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 04:09:36 -0000 |
|
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Marius Merullus"
<c_marius_m@n...> wrote:
> Salvete Praetor Palladi et alii
Salve C. Mari! Glad to see you still around.
> :The current law drops them completely and that is probably the best
> :thing to do.
>
> I disagree with most of your points against the new law, but mostly
>with this one. How is it better to expel inactive people than to
>change their status?
Most of my points? My opposition to socii status IS my point since
most of the rest of the new law is minor revisions of the older one
(outside of making the governors central to the census).
I turn it around and ask you, why is it better to change the status
of inactive people who have contributed nothing for years than to
just kick them out outright? It isn't better, it's dodging what must
be done. It was talked about for years in NR, finally enacted into
law in NR and now someone comes along to change that again before it
is enacted.
> :I ask you, do you envision people remaining socii indefinitely?
> :Possibly a time limit should be placed on that status, like two
years.
>
> Fine points like this, in my view, make rules unnecessarily
>lengthy. The further an author goes into this kind of contingent
>detail, the more likely to create an internal contradiction or
>conflict with another rule.
We are not talking about loose general rules meant to be twisted and
bent, we are speaking of creating laws. Laws can be necessarily
lengthy, like the LEX SALICIA IVDICIARIA. Fine points are what make
a law, as they regulate specific situations. Vague wording, lack of
detail make for bad, vague laws, which are more likely to run
contrary to other laws because one cannot be sure what they mean. I'm
guilty of it myself, I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I am saying that
I have learned that specificity is needed in a law.
So, in that vein I suggest that putting a time limit on socius status
is perfectly reasonable, we should not want it to last forever.
> :If the law was so badly written, why did you borrow from it so
> :heavily? Many parts of your law are taken verbatim from the old
law,
> :in essence making it a large amendment to the law and not
completely
> :new piece of legislation. It is some of the the changes you made
with
> :the law that I find the problems with.
> Without alteration, the old census law forces NR either to leave
>the law in place and pretend that it is not there, or expend some
>money and a lot of effort to expel the majority of our membership.
I don't see a problem there. The people voted that we do just that.
Decius Iunius Palladius,
etc.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 00:58:26 -0400 |
|
Salve,
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 03:00:17AM -0000, deciusiunius wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> <christer.edling@t...> wrote:
>
> > >As Calvus rightly points out, the costs under both laws will be
> about
> > >the same so it is not a matter of saving money, though the matter
> of
> > >reimbursements are an problem with the proposed law.
> >
> > As You may have seen that this is plainly wrong.
>
> No, it is not wrong. I understand your rationale for the tax credit
> and understood it when I previously posted, I just disagree with your
> rationale.
Did you have a countering rationale to present? Just saying "it's not
wrong" without any explanation gets you nowhere, benefits few, and
convinces none. Explaining why you think otherwise may be beneficial,
perhaps as motivation for later improvement - and perhaps, in the
process of thinking it through in order to explain, you may find that
you are indeed wrong, no matter how much you'd prefer not to be.
> > The tax credit system is still cheaper and I am sure that that our
> > loyal and enthusiastic officials are prepared to wait one year for
> > enbursement if it keep costs down.
>
> Ahh, the subtle appeal to patriotism to forgo compensation. Not a
> pretty sight. So if one thinks we should promptly compensate those
> who work on our behalf he is not patriotic?
I find this distortion of what was plainly stated rather interesting.
Did you see anything in the law - or in the Consul's words, above - that
would ask people to forfeit or surrender their right to reimbursement?
That is what "forgo" means.
Yes, this does require that the magistrates effectively make an
interest-free loan to Nova Roma. That averages out to (let's pick an
arbitrarily high number) what, ten bucks each for a year? Simple
interest at even ten percent would be a dollar. Go ahead - let me hear
from the people who grudge eight cents a month over the period of a year
to participate in Nova Roma. If you're right, I'll be buried under a
pile of email Real Soon Now.
> Oh, and would the tax credit pay interest back to the worker or would
> those few cents be a further gift to Nova Roma? ;-) <humor alert,
> said somewhat tongue in cheek, though I wouldn't mind an answer>
I'm afraid it's not particularly humorous, given the rest of this post.
In many ways, Nova Roma is a gift culture; we give our time, our effort,
and our money to keep it going. As long as you're talking about
reimbursing every single penny (you've forgotten about the opportunity
cost of that money, too - if you didn't spend that dollar on Nova Roma,
you could have invested it...), why not count up the hours spent by each
magistrate, look up the average pay scale for the locale, and reimburse
them for those hours? In fact, shouldn't we do that for all our
magistrates as soon as they're elected? Sure, we'll make them keep
timesheets, and maybe require them to buy a timeclock, set up tracking
cameras to make sure they're actually working during the billed
period...
This kind of nitpicking gets silly very quickly.
> > So You think that it will be to our advantage if we hide this fact
> > and "lie" about it?
>
> Lie? Who said lie? Leaving people in the head count is not lying but
> it also is not pointing a neon sign to those who don't bother to
> commit anything to Nova Roma.
Well, I didn't use the term, but I will now: once we have accurate
numbers that tell us how many citizens we actually have, presenting a
different figure would _be_ lying. It's not a question of a neon sign -
it's a question of integrity. I do not think that it sorts well with
Nova Roma's stated ideals to sweep embarassing little tidbits under the
carpet.
> The current law drops them completely and that is probably the best
> thing to do.
>
> I ask you, do you envision people remaining socii indefinitely?
> Possibly a time limit should be placed on that status, like two years.
That question, if it needs to be raised at all, can be discussed once we
have determined the number of Socii. It certainly has no bearing on the
census.
> Fine, then put a time limit on this status. Otherwise, a non-active
> citizen will tie up a particular name indefinitely
Is this a real problem? Do we have people wailing and rending their
clothes because The One Name that they want is taken? If you have
information to this effect, please make it available; I'm sure that
steps will be taken if that is a real issue.
> > It was ignored because it was a badly written and thought through
> >law!
>
> In your opinion. However, that is irrelevant not to mention specious.
> Should magistrates pick and choose what laws they wish to obey?
I don't wish to be harsh, but - you need to reconcile yourself to the
fact that they have. A quote that appears in my quote file says
Impossibilium nulla obligatio est.
Nobody has any obligation to do the impossible.
-- Corpus Iuris Civilis: Digesta
It was clearly impossible, or at the very least tremendously unfair, to
ask a small number of people to bear the entire cost - and they failed,
if that's the term you want to use, to do so. Do you wish to continue
this useless practice, trying to enforce (with no means of enforcement)
a law that will not be obeyed? Lex Fabia de Censo makes the costs small
and easily bearable by both distributing them among a higher number and
decreasing them overall. Why are you arguing against something that
provides a sensible alternative to a law that has been *proven* to be
unworkable?
> If the law was so badly written, why did you borrow from it so
> heavily?
There's an old Russian saying about a spoonful of tar (in the polite
version, anyway) spoiling a barrelful of honey. Keeping 99.9% of the
original mix by eliminating the tar is the most intelligent solution -
and yet does not change things much, percentage-wise.
> > As I have got a clear indication that the Censors prefer this law.
>
> Again, that is irrelevant. What they "prefer" does not matter in the
> slightest, they had (have?) an obligation to carry out the law to the
> best of their ability. Did they at least try to obey the law?
Speaking of irrelevant... I suggest looking at reality and adjusting to
it. The old law was not obeyed because it imposed too large of a burden
on individuals. If you would like to bear, say, one-fifth of the cost of
the entire census just to show people how it should be done, I would
imagine that you would find some people to follow you. Would you care to
try that? Or do you think the new law would work better?
> I ask you, if this law passes, to consider an amendment to the law
> putting a time limit on how long one can remain a socius. There must
> be a limit on this status.
Must there?... well, that's a discussion for another time - if indeed it
arises once this law has passed. I suspect that it will lose all its
importance at that point, since I see it as nothing more than yet
another tactic to show that this beneficial improvement should not come
to be.
> > That would be financially irresponsible.
>
> Not to mention in compliance with the law, but that doesn't matter
> as "I think it was a badly written and thought through law and thus
> ignored it."
The law was not obeyed at the time; it is impossible for it to be obeyed
at this very moment. Meanwhile, we're changing it so that it does not
continue to spread its harmful effect of (among other things) breeding
disrespect for Nova Roman law in general. If you're trying to somehow
blame the fact that the original, badly-written law was disobeyed on
the current magistrates, then you're completely off-target.
> [-note, just for the record again, this post is a personal opinion,
> not an official praetorian position and is rated G, suitable for all
> audiences ;-)]
I suppose the extra-cautious Moms and Dads can always set their email
filters to "stun"...
Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Primum est non nocere.
First of all, do no harm.
-- Hippocrates; The maxim has become an ethical guiding principle in medicine.
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Contra the Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia <arnamentia_aurelia@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Sun, 25 May 2003 21:58:16 -0700 (PDT) |
|
> >Decimus Iunius Silanus recently commented on the
workload this would
> >create for the governors and their staffs and I
encourage you to
> >reread his comments.
>
> As Astur said most Governors and legati have so
little to do that
> they may well be happy to make this contribution.
;-)
I for one will be *very* happy to make this
contribution. It is exactly what I have been wanting
to do for the benefit of this region and Nova Roma.
Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia
=====
Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia
Legata, Oregonia Boreoccidentalis
http://ambor.novaroma.org
Accensa Ordinaria Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
Citizen of Nova Roma
http://www.gensmoravia.org
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Ancient Medicine/Medicina Antiqua |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 06:32:30 -0000 |
|
G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.
Avete, Quirites.
Here's a link to "Ancient Medicine/Medicina Antiqua":
http://www.ea.pvt.k12.pa.us/medant/
"Ancient Medicine/Medicina Antiqua" is maintained by Dr. Lee T. Pearcy
(The Episcopal Academy) in collaboration with Dr. Ann Ellis Hanson
(Yale Univ.), Dr. James O'Donnell (Univ. of Pennsylvania), and Dr.
Heinrich Von Staden (Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton Univ.).
The site includes e-texts of Graeco-Roman medical texts, scholarly
essays, bibliographies, links, and contact information for the Society
for Ancient Medicine.
Valete, Quirites.
G. Iulius Scaurus
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Annual magistrates was Contra New Census Law |
| From: |
"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 10:04:01 +0200 |
|
Salve D Iunius Palladius,
< Perhaps this comes from our brief five-year existence or
< perhaps it is a flaw in electing annual magistrates, because there
< often is a desire to turn the system upside down every year.
That is a very interesting comment. Maybe this is something that can be
discussed in the future after more pressing issues like the Census law, and
electoral reform. Besides your point above, it takes every elected official
a while to learn their position. By the time we know the ins and outs of it,
a new 'newbie' takes our places. Practically speaking, I think NR would be
more efficient if certain elected positions had a longer term.
Positions such as the Curator Differum (Eagle editor) can be changed to have
a longer term without disrupting the present system at all. For example:
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus is working like a slave to get the Eagle off the
ground again. By the time he has a good working system in place, he'll have
to hand it over to a new person. Besides that, new subscribers are
subscribing to *his* version of the Eagle and a replacement after only one
year most likely would produce a different product. Anyway, my aplogies T
Galerius Paulinus for speaking about him in the third person.
Vale,
Diana Moravia Aventina
Tribunus Plebis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
RE: [Nova-Roma] Bank Accounts and NR |
| From: |
"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 10:27:35 +0200 |
|
Salve Tiberius,
< A European Bank account to go along with the USA account!!!
This is a great idea, but it won't save too much as far as money transfer
costs regarding the census. Between European countries it still costs about
7 dollars to transfer money between them or to cash a check. BUT sticking a
few euros in an envelope and mailing them in cash would probably be safe
enough, but it is illegal :-p
Vale
Diana Moravia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Dimision |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Caivs=20Ivlivs=20Barcinvs=20Ciconivs?= <xgemella@yahoo.es> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 11:15:04 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salve
I Caius Iulius Barcinus Ciconius, Im obligate in order to my personal situation and close to my translate out of the country , because i cant not be in charge for the place i was selected in, cives de Hispania and called by the Senado de Novaroma, to present inmediately my total resignation as a Propaetor of the Hispania Province In order to my move to from hispania providence to Mexico city I aks adscription to this one .
Caius Iulius Barcinus Ciconius
Caius Iulius Barcinus Ciconius.
Col. Faventina Iulia Augusta Paterna Barcino. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iulii/files/furrina.html
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger
Nueva versión: Super Webcam, voz, caritas animadas, y más #161;Gratis!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Contra the Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
"Manius Constantinus Serapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 10:45:03 -0000 |
|
AVETE OMNES
> Remember that we have seen quite a few "old" citizens return to
Nova
> Roma. AS far as I understand all of them have had honorable reasons
> to be gone for a short time. This kind of "Socii" would possibly
feel
> stronger loyalty to a micro-nation which still kept their name in
> high regard rather than one which just would erase their good name,
> because it is ashamed of the fact that it can keep its citizens.
Just to make an example, after Semptember 11th I had to leave Nova
Roma for several month as I had to go with my army to Afghanistan and
Israel. Had the Census been held, say, during that period, with the
Lex Cornelia I would have to reapply for citizenship when I came
back. With the Lex Fabia I would have become a socius and would
simply have to ask the censores to get back my previous stuatus. Just
an example, of course, but you see it makes difference! ;-)
BENE VALETE
M'Con.Serapio
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
"Manius Constantinus Serapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 10:59:37 -0000 |
|
AVE OPTIME Q CASSI CALVE
> > You are making a mistake. do You want to abandon these persons?
>
> They have abandoned us. I understand your reasons behind the socii
> and they are noble ones but we should not accomodate inactive
> citizens for any great length of time.
That's not right: we have citizens in Provincia Italia which joined
in 1998 and which are coming back after 5 years of inactivity, as
they didn't know english and now they see that our Provincial
activity is growing.
If they were expelled last year by the Lex Cornelia they would never
come back this year.
BENE VALE
M'Con.Serapio
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <sacro_barese_impero@libero.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 11:11:05 -0000 |
|
Salvete,
for example, I'm citizen from 1999 and I was interested to NR for 2
years. I came back in June 2001 knowing there were other active
citizens.
The egressus' experience in provincia Italia explained by Serapio is
a clear example how Lex Fabia is important for Nova Roma.
P.S.: As Propraetor I'm proud and glad to give my contribution!
Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Propraetor Provinciae Italiae
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Manius Constantinus Serapio"
<mcserapio@y...> wrote:
> AVE OPTIME Q CASSI CALVE
>
> > > You are making a mistake. do You want to abandon these persons?
> >
> > They have abandoned us. I understand your reasons behind the
socii
> > and they are noble ones but we should not accomodate inactive
> > citizens for any great length of time.
>
> That's not right: we have citizens in Provincia Italia which
joined
> in 1998 and which are coming back after 5 years of inactivity, as
> they didn't know english and now they see that our Provincial
> activity is growing.
> If they were expelled last year by the Lex Cornelia they would
never
> come back this year.
>
> BENE VALE
> M'Con.Serapio
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Salvete! |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <sacro_barese_impero@libero.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 11:16:54 -0000 |
|
Salvete Diana et Omnes,
> This year is turning out to be pretty exciting.
> Ok the endless run-offs were dull, but now we
> will have a 5th Tribune appointed in a way
> normally not done (=lively discussions), a census
> (=more lively discussions) and electoral reform
> (=even more lively discussions). Plus we citizens
> have an opportunity to meet at Roman Days and
> again at the 2nd NR Rally in Bologna. It's
> turning out to be a very good year!
Thank you Diana, to have remembered the event in Bologna, I hope to
meet you too.
I remember you all the subscriptions to the Nova Roma Rally in
bologna from 1st to 3th August is now open. Please, visit
http://aediles.novaroma.org/apulus/meeting or contact me at fraelov
@ yahoo.it for further informations.
In Bologna we could continue to talk about the Census Law and the
several discussions talked in this year eating roman meats and
drinking good mulsum.
I invite all the Nova Romans to enjoy the meeting!
Valete
Fr Apulus Caesar
Senior Curule Aedile
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Bank Accounts and NR |
| From: |
"Lucius Arminius Faustus" <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 12:48:34 -0000 |
|
Salve,
Alas, coming together with the excellent post of Tiberius Galerius, I
say more, a third bank account on South America is needed for Brazil
and Argentina. Having the banks on that three poles would fit NR
necessities pretty well, and help the continuous boom of NR on Europe
and South America from these last years.
(And sure looking foward for the fourth on East Asia, maybe Singapore
or Japan, a place with more citizens. NR is too international now, we
must look foward to spread the Res Publica ´real world legal res´ to
many countries as well.)
L. Arminius Faustus
Quaestor
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:
> Salve Consul
>
> My post had nothing to do with the pros or cons of your proposed Lex
> I simply used two of these post to show that we need a central bank
for
> Europe.
>
> I can not believe that the EC does not have branches of Bank X in a
number
> of Nations in Europe which would facilitate the movement of money
in Europe.
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Caeso Fabius Quintilianus" <christer.edling@t...>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 3:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Bank Accounts and NR
>
>
> > Salve Curator!
> >
> >
> > >Salve Romans
> > >
> > >
> > >.."You see it will cost money to send money to these continents
from
> > >our central Treasury in North America and Lex Cornelia have _no_
> > >solution to this."....
> > >
> > >
> > >...It would cost only $163.41 in postage to do it within the
> > >provinces, but cost $120.00 in international money transfer fees
to
> > >reimburse the
> > >governors. That means it would the Lex Fabia would cost $44.21
more
> > >than the Lex Cornelia in Europe alone....
> >
> > How many times must I say that it is the other way around?
According
> > to Lex Cornelia the Censors must organise the Census and there is
no
> > provincial Census organisation. Of course theCensors could build a
> > special Census organisation, but the compensation must be payed
from
> > the central Treasury that is located in USA. This mean that Lex
> > Cornelia will be more expensive as it has to use international
money
> > orders!
> >
> > As Lex Fabia may compensate by tax credit, no international money
> > transfer fees are needed, thus it means that Lex Fabia is cheaper.
> >
> > I find it astonishing that You try to tell me, a Propraetor, about
> > the costs for international money orders. I have together with
other
> > Governors tried to adjust the tax rules to accomodate to these
facts
> > for many years.
> >
> > Please re-read the laws again and You will find that You have
misread
> > the Lex Fabia. To repeat a false statement will make it a lie and
I
> > am sure that You don't want to lie.
> >
> > >These two passages from posts on the census law brings up
another
> > >point I have been thinking about for some time.
> > >
> > >Hold on to you hat or take a seat this is REALLY BIG.
> > >
> > >
> > >I think the Nova Roma needs......
> > >
> > >A European Bank account to go along with the USA account!!!
> > >
> > >I know , I know such a revolutionary idea (:0)
> > >
> > >We need two permanent, Senate appointed, not elected Quaestors
or
> > >at least two elected ones with longer terms of office and each
would
> > >be in charge of one of the two bank accounts and yes the two
> > >permanent Quaestors would need to be bonded.
> > >
> > >May be a " Proquaestor" like a Proconsul. Just a thought
> >
> > Interesting idea. I am not sure that your proposal is what we
need,
> > but I am sure You have pointed out an interesting problem. But,
still
> > Europe isn't the USE (United States of Europe), it may still be
hard
> > to transfer money from one country to another. So itis abit more
> > complecated. Still it is worth looking into.
> >
> > >Vale
> > >
> > >Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> > Senior Consul et Senator
> > Propraetor Thules
> > Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
> > Civis Romanus sum
> > ************************************************
> > Cohors Consulis CFQ
> > http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
> > ************************************************
> > Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> > "I'll either find a way or make one"
> > ************************************************
> > Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> > Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 13:48:14 -0000 |
|
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Manius Constantinus Serapio"
<mcserapio@y...> wrote:
> AVE OPTIME Q CASSI CALVE
>
> > > You are making a mistake. do You want to abandon these persons?
> >
> > They have abandoned us. I understand your reasons behind the
socii
> > and they are noble ones but we should not accomodate inactive
> > citizens for any great length of time.
>
> That's not right: we have citizens in Provincia Italia which joined
> in 1998 and which are coming back after 5 years of inactivity, as
> they didn't know english and now they see that our Provincial
> activity is growing.
> If they were expelled last year by the Lex Cornelia they would
never
> come back this year.
>
> BENE VALE
> M'Con.Serapio
Salve Manius Constantinus Serapio,
Just for the record, I wrote neither statement.
"You are making a mistake. do You want to abandon these persons?" --
Consul Caeso Fabius Quintilianus in response to Senator Decius Iunius
Palladius in msg # 10805 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-
Roma/message/10805
"They have abandoned us. I understand your reasons behind the socii
and they are noble ones but we should not accomodate inactive
citizens for any great length of time." -- Senator Decius Iunius
Palladius in reply to Consul Caeso Fabius Quintilianus in Msg #
#10808 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/10808
Vale,
Q. Cassius Calvus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
"Paula Drennan" <dragonpink@satx.rr.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 09:09:12 -0500 |
|
<SNIP>
> :The current law drops them completely and that is probably the best
> :thing to do.
>
> I disagree with most of your points against the new law, but mostly with
> this one. How is it better to expel inactive people than to change their
> status?
Ave,
Thank you for making my point for me here. As an "inactive" citizen I was
very distressed to see that in my absence I may have lost my right to
citizenship. I was forced to go inactive due to financial cnstraints that
prevented me from having the internet, and time constraints that prevented
me from participating in the list from another source, like the library.
Dispite my lack of activity Nova Roma is something that is important to me.
I'm very proud to be a citizen. When my financial situation settles in more,
I'll be able to send in my taxes.
But now I have a question: when the taxes were implemented before i went
inactive, I recall it was voluntary. But if one did not pay taxes, one could
not vote. Is that still how it is?
Salve,
Claudia Fabia Calpurnia
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 16:35:18 +0200 |
|
Paula Drennan wrote:
> Zhen the taxes were implemented before i
> went inactive, I recall it was voluntary.
> But if one did not pay taxes, one could
> not vote. Is that still how it is?
Salve, Claudia Fabia Calpurnia.
I believe that's almost the case, only you ARE allowed to vote. Your
vote just doesn't carry a great deal of weight, as you're a member of a
very numerous tribe/century. One more qualifier, though, you're not
allowed to stand for public office. Appointed positions should, on the
other hand, be alright.
Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] "Inactive" Citizens |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 08:23:34 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete Quirites,
Over 30 years ago I was a member of the Boy Scouts,
but I dropped out without submitting a formal
resignation. I have my doubts that the Boy Scouts
still list me as a member, and this would hold true
for allmost any other organization.
The Vast Majority of the "Inactive" citizens are
people who thought so little of Nova Roma that they
didn't bother sending us a letter of resignation when
they left. The Only thing we accomplish by retaining
them on our roles, either as Citizens, as Head Count,
as Socii, or any other label, is deluding ourselves
about the number of people intrested in retaining
membership in this organization.
I Like the idead of having an associate membership,
the Sccii, but the Census lex dosen't set this group
up properly. All it does is duplicate the Capti Censi
under yet another label. Setting up the Socii
correctly would require a constionual admendment
setting up a class of members who wouldn't be liable
for taxes, nor who would be allowed to vote. I would
go as far as requiring new members to spend a minium
ammount of time as Socii, say 3 months, before they
could apply for citizenship. This should cut down on
the number of people who apply for citizenship on a
whim, and who soon vanish. Socii should also be
required to answer to a Census to retain thier limited
membership.
I Can not, and will not vote for any lex that
continues the self deception about our membership. The
present Lex eliminates this self deception and should
be retained.
=====
L. Sicinius Drusus
Roman Citizen
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
"Decimus Iunius Silanus" <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 17:29:30 -0000 |
|
Salvete,
> > The tax credit system is still cheaper and I am sure that that our
> > loyal and enthusiastic officials are prepared to wait one year for
> > enbursement if it keep costs down.
As an incumbent governor, I do not begrudge Nova Roma either my time or my
money. Infact I have always contributed both, and willingly so. If this lex
passes, I will assist with the conducting the census and I will probably
even forego the promised tax credit. However, I believe it is wrong to pass
a lex that effectively takes our governors commitment in terms of time and
money for granted.
If in replying to this post anyone wishes to question my commitment to Nova
Roma, I tell you now not to bother. My record here speaks for itself and the
thread will be a total non-starter :-)
Valete
Decimus Iunius Silanus
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Census; |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@webtv.net |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 14:30:56 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Honored Nova Roma Citizens;
I am not much of a Politican, and certainly not clever enough to seek
out the smaller fibers of a proposed law, and point out thier
detriments.
I leave that to others. The points made by my Senate Colleague Gaius
Marinus Merullus and my family friend Caius Minucius Scaevola make sense
to me, and I support thier views. Senator Merullus has long been a
valued advisor, and I have found his clarity of view and excellent
counsel to have over the years been virtually faultless. Citizen
Scaevola is one of the NR Citizens whose views I also value, and when he
speaks, I listen. The Census proposal before us gets NR off top dead
center, and moves the micronation ahead in the direction that the
citizens have determned that it should go. It moves NR out of the
impossibility (to date) to carry out the Census as approved by the
Citizens of NR.
I am sure that if one wished to do so one could find many problems with
virtually anything proposed in this area, and we should be forever
trying to make some sort of success out of the previously worded law.
As I have said, I am not much of a Politician, but I have some small
success at getting under a problem and shifting it into gear to get it
moving in the right direction in some of my career activities. The
Citizens of Nova Roma have voted to do a Census, and they have been
forced to wait due to an unrealistic set of situations which "blew out
the tires" on the effort. Our Senior Consul has put some air back into
those same tires and offers to get the effort rolling again.
As always there are nit-pickers who wish to make just one more
adjustment, dot one more "i" and cross one more "t". The Citizenship of
NR has indicated the necessity of moving ahead with this program, so I
would ask the Citizens to approve the Senior Consul's Proposal to do
just that, and let loose the brakes, so this effort can get rolling as
has been previously approved.
I do not appreciate the Citizen's desires being held up by the poking
fingers and snide remarks of those who make "political hay" from
disrupting the wishes of a nation. The final arbiters of this desire
are the people of NR, and they have spoken. Let us then come together,
and move this effort ahead, as the Citizenship has already voted too
long ago to get done.
Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Pro Lex Fabia |
| From: |
"Lucius Arminius Faustus" <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 19:19:54 -0000 |
|
Salvete,
I come to you, citizens, to give my fully support to Lex Fabia de
Censo.
Many illustrious citizens have spoken lots of good argumentation
about it, but I want to remember one: It turns the Provincial Census
on the National Census. The boom of provincial life is incredible.
Alas, making a break the necessity the citizens to know english. The
language bounds sure slows NR a lot. The governor can talk on its
natural language to the citizens. We must open NR to non-english
speakers as much we can if we want to make the Res Publica mission
complete, spread romanitas ´urbe et orbe´. I know in short time we
are bound to english by necessity and convenience (but on the future
we must also look foward to a better version of Lex Cornelia de
Linguis Publica also. Not now, wait 1000 active citizens, now just
the Census Law. One thing at the time.)
BUT the roman sistem of Law was a problem. By carring the name of the
proposer, some people feel ofensive changing the names.
Anyway, I´m PRO LEX FABIA
Vale,
L. Arminius Faustus
Quaestor, Aedile et Interpreter
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] LARARIA ET SACRA PRIVATA |
| From: |
GAIVS IVLIANVS <ivlianvs309@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 11:56:22 -0700 (PDT) |
|
SALVETE QVIRITES! In an recent article published in
Italy's MTR review "La Cittadella" the importance was
stressed concerning the restoration of the Religio
Romana in the establishment by true pious Romani who
adhere to the Mos Maiorum of Lararia within their
homes and the daily practice of the Sacra Privata!
This is the most important key to the recreation of
any serious Roman Pagan community made up of
individuals, Familiae and Gentes! Long before there
was any Res Publica, there was the Familia and Gens.
And at the center and focus of every Familia there was
the household LARARIUM!!! We Romani today can do no
better than to seriously stress and encourage that all
make it a duty to Pietas and the Cultus Deorum to
establish a Lararium within ones home and daily carry
out the rites due to the Dei Familiae, the Lares and
Penates! May the Gods, the Dii Imortales be propitious
to all who undertake this duty to heart and for the
VIA ROMANA AD DEOS! (The Roman Way To The Gods!)
VALETE! FRATER, GAIVS IVLIVS IVLIANVS, SENIOR
PATERFAMILIAS GENS IVLIAE, FLAMEN FLORALIS
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 16:49:12 -0400 |
|
Salve,
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 05:29:30PM -0000, Decimus Iunius Silanus wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> > > The tax credit system is still cheaper and I am sure that that our
> > > loyal and enthusiastic officials are prepared to wait one year for
> > > enbursement if it keep costs down.
>
> As an incumbent governor, I do not begrudge Nova Roma either my time or my
> money. Infact I have always contributed both, and willingly so. If this lex
> passes, I will assist with the conducting the census and I will probably
> even forego the promised tax credit. However, I believe it is wrong to pass
> a lex that effectively takes our governors commitment in terms of time and
> money for granted.
Excellent: you're not arguing in your own defense but that of others -
whoever they may be. Could you point out exactly who those people are,
those magistrates that _do_ begrudge Nova Roma their time and a few
cents? If you can't, I'm afraid that you have no one to defend - and
your arguments have no point or validity.
> If in replying to this post anyone wishes to question my commitment to Nova
> Roma, I tell you now not to bother. My record here speaks for itself and the
> thread will be a total non-starter :-)
Not me. I don't question your commitment to Nova Roma - only to an idea
whose time has long passed. Let it be retired and rest in peace, as it
so fully deserves.
Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Sed fugit interae, fugit irreparabile tempus.
But meanwhile, the irreplaceable time escapes.
-- Vergil, "Georgica". Usually, you only quote the last three words.
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Off to sea again |
| From: |
Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 16:57:07 -0400 |
|
Salvete, omnes -
Well, I'm off to sea again in a few hours; a passage up the Gulf Stream
however far toward Norfolk it'll take me, barring contrary weather
(that's what rules my ride; time is not of the essence.) I'm sure that
there are some folks here who'll be more than happy to see me go :) -
but I'll be back when I get near land again. Until then, who knows what
life will bring? - not I... and so I wish you all good luck, good
health, and the joy of being a part of something you care about, Nova
Roma.
Until we all meet again -
Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Illi robur et aes triplex circa pectus erat, qui fragilem truci commisit pelago
ratem primus.
As hard as oak and three times bronze was the heart of him who first committed a
fragile vessel to the keeping of wild waves.
-- Horace, "Carmina"
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Contra New Census Law ;-) |
| From: |
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 22:40:40 +0200 |
|
Salve Illustrus Quaestor et Amice!
Those days are gone, for ever I hope, when the Consul of Nova Roma
would try to humiliate good and hard working citizens like You! Even
if we are at opposite sites when it comes to this law, I would stand
by your side if anyone would question your integrity and dutifulness.
>If in replying to this post anyone wishes to question my commitment to Nova
>Roma, I tell you now not to bother. My record here speaks for itself and the
>thread will be a total non-starter :-)
>
>Valete
>
>Decimus Iunius Silanus
--
Vale
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Off to sea again |
| From: |
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 23:27:51 +0200 |
|
Salve Amice!
Safe journey, my friend and please let me hear from You soon!
>Salvete, omnes -
>
>Well, I'm off to sea again in a few hours; a passage up the Gulf Stream
>however far toward Norfolk it'll take me, barring contrary weather
>(that's what rules my ride; time is not of the essence.) I'm sure that
>there are some folks here who'll be more than happy to see me go :) -
>but I'll be back when I get near land again. Until then, who knows what
>life will bring? - not I... and so I wish you all good luck, good
>health, and the joy of being a part of something you care about, Nova
>Roma.
>
>Until we all meet again -
>
>Valete,
>Caius Minucius Scaevola
--
Vale
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
|
| Subject: |
RE: [Nova-Roma] LARARIA ET SACRA PRIVATA |
| From: |
"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be> |
| Date: |
Tue, 27 May 2003 00:47:09 +0200 |
|
Salve Gaius Julianus!
Hey long time no hear! Welcome back! We've missed you! Great post by the way
:-)
Vale,
Diana Moravia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Done |
| From: |
"jlasalle" <jlasalle@sbcglobal.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 18:09:46 -0500 |
|
Salve
I have finished my murder trial. My caseload is hugely backed up-ed. I have
been deleting NR e-mails en masse. So, whats happened since, say, April?
GB Agricola
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Novus Romanvs |
| From: |
"avlvsapvlvsagerivs" <Avv.A.Orlandini@katamail.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 23:10:24 -0000 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
Mihi nomen est Avlus Apvlvs Agerivs,Lupiarvm incola,Provincia Italia
propterea petivi affiliationem ad gentem Apvlam.Mea interest historia
ivs et lingva Romanorvm sed possvm lingvam italicam
vulgarem,britannicam,germanicam,hispanicam,graecam et lusitanam
etiam intelligere.Exstimo mvltvm virtvtes civitatemque antiquae
Romae et spero me multas epistulas latine loquentivm receptvrum esse.
Avlvs Apvlvs
|
| Subject: |
RE: [Nova-Roma] Done |
| From: |
"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be> |
| Date: |
Tue, 27 May 2003 01:29:27 +0200 |
|
Salve Agricola,
<So, whats happened since, say, April?
We made the plan.
Vale,
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Done |
| From: |
"Sp. Postumius Tubertus" <postumius@gmx.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2003 19:36:34 -0400 |
|
Sp. Postumius Dianae Moraviae Aventinae S.P.D.
> <So, whats happened since, say, April?
>
> We made the plan.
Did we really? So what is the plan, Diana Moravia?
Vale,
Sp. Postumius Tubertus
"Nam nemo sine vitiis nascitur; optimus ille est qui minima habet." -- Q. Horatius Flaccus
|
